ML20062B230

Denies Util Request for Order Declaring Discovery Open to All Parties.If Any Party Finds That Request for Info Unsatisfied or Requests Unduly Burdensome,Motion Will Be Entertained at That Time

ML20062B230
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	10/13/1978
From:	Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 7810250193
Download: ML20062B230 (3)

Text

y

,a

,I f 'O e N.

p s.

p '

p,,,

)x "L7 DOCG.ENT PO^?r ch s

i:

!;d Q%,:p,-

.9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA tp7 C/

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

=

N

\\'-(A

,r A

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinz BoaHt-In the Matter of

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. STN(50-488

)

'50-489' (Perkins Nuclear Station,

)

50-490 Units 1, 2, and 3)

)

1 10 6 8

7 ORDER RELATIVE TO DISCOVERY AND GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES On August 8, 1978, the Applicant addressed a letter to this Board urging prompt action on the alternate sites issue and concluded with a request for an Order declaring discovery open to all parties.

This motion was opposed in an August 31 response by the NRC Staff on the bases of interest and ti=eli-ness.

The. Staff further believes that an Order opening dis-covery is not necessary in that the Staff will provide the Intervenors and the State of North Carolina such information as it is developed.

'Je agree that a formal Order is not needed at this time.

If any party to this proceeding finds that a request for information on alternate sites is-unsatis-fled or that such requests are unduly burdensc=e, we will entertain a motion at that ti=e.

79/carc193 6

7

.o

[

In our Order of September 7,1978, we asked the opinion of the parties concerning the adequacy of the Perkins record in meeting Appeal Board criteria on generic safety issues.

On September 14 the Staff responded that the record may be defective in this respect and proposed additional testimony to be tendered at the reopened hearing on alternate sites.

On September 28 the Applicant replied that in its opinion the record was adequate and listed references to the SER, the PSAR, and the CESSAR in support of their position.

Our chief concern was with the adequacy of the Staff review of generic matters.

Their response confirms our doubts.

We 9111 expect to receive additional testimony on generic safety issues in the reopened hearings.

In particular we wish to call to the attention of all parties the recent document NUREG-0460.

We now question whether the commitment on the part of the Applicant in answer to Board Question 1 will pro-vide an adequate solution to the issue of anticipated transients without scram.

(See Applicant's testimony following Cherokee Transcript, p. 940 which has been incorporated into this record).

We also request the Staff to review their testimony in reply to our question.

l 4

i I IT IS SO ORDERED.

t s

FOR TE ATOMIC SAFETY AND i

LICENSING E0ARD

[

t

'I I

kJALJ Mw

\\

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman

-l r

l Dated at Bethesda*, Maryland t

t This 13th day of October 1978.

f-t v

.]

i b

s.

i T

C

_o.

l

.....